Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
911 - Points to discuss
-
07-04-2009 9:43am#1It think it would be a very interesting exercise to try this. We'll need the Mods help here as we're all likely to get out of hand eventually otherwise, and I include myself in that.
So if we discuss one topic at a time and look in depth at it before moving to another. I think it will be a useful task and I'd hope it would show there is less evidence for a CT here than some people think. This is only my 'sceptics' opinion and I'm really interested for any of the CT's out there to show me the opposite.
I'd like to start this with the text from 911myths.com site as I think it covers my views closely enough.
What suggestions do you have for a topic you'd like to start on? What other ground rules should we have?
[Mods feel free to edit]
9/11 was an inside job. I don't feel the need to convince you of this. It would be a complete waste of time.
Any ground rule I would have would be not to let sceptics post till after 5 pages and let a discussion get legs. Too many topics are stymied in the second post.
This forum seems like some bizaro-christianity forum overrun by atheists.0
Comments
-
jackiebrown wrote: »9/11 was an inside job.
In your opinion.jackiebrown wrote: »I don't feel the need to convince you of this. It would be a complete waste of time.
Ok but do you feel like discussing it? I mean this is a discussion forum. If you just want to post your thoughts then I suggest you get a blog.jackiebrown wrote: »Any ground rule I would have would be not to let sceptics post till after 5 pages and let a discussion get legs. Too many topics are stymied in the second post.
If someone is starting a thread they should make their view clear in the first post. There are so many threads in here where someone posts a link to a video and says "what do you think?". Get your thoughts together before you post and there shouldnt be a problem.jackiebrown wrote: »This forum seems like some bizaro-christianity forum overrun by atheists.
If you dont like it you dont have to post in it. A forum is only as good as the people who post in it so if you up your game it may have a knock on effect.
_________________________
Anyway as I said to Helen above the opening post is very important when it comes to setting the tone for a thread. Lazy OPs are the downfall of many good topics.0 -
In your opinion.
More belief than opinion. I wasn't here during the 9/11 furore so I don't know what went on in the forum but I hear mega thread being mentioned. Did this thread change peoples opinion or polarise? We're insults traded and the term "Foil hat brigade" bandied about?
Fair enough. If I want to thats what I'll do.Ok but do you feel like discussing it? I mean this is a discussion forum. If you just want to post your thoughts then I suggest you get a blog.If someone is starting a thread they should make their view clear in the first post. There are so many threads in here where someone posts a link to a video and says "what do you think?". Get your thoughts together before you post and there shouldnt be a problem.
Ok. How about defining conspiracy theory in the context of what constitutes one on this forum? Could you define proof in the context of this forum?
As the "I smell a conspiracy" thread shows, even when you claim to have no proof and want an open discussion you still get badgered for it. It also begs the question that if people believe 9/11 is not a conspiracy then why discuss it in CT.If you dont like it you dont have to post in it. A forum is only as good as the people who post in it so if you up your game it may have a knock on effect.0 -
jackiebrown wrote: »More belief than opinion. I wasn't here during the 9/11 furore so I don't know what went on in the forum but I hear mega thread being mentioned. Did this thread change peoples opinion or polarise? We're insults traded and the term "Foil hat brigade" bandied about?
What I saw clearly from the previous 911 threads was that either there was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion or the facts backed the US government findings. But honestly I'd be happy for you so show me otherwise in a new discussion about it. But US government=bad won't cut it here, there is a lot of bull**** associated with 911 and checking many 'truth' sites properly you can see that within five minutes. This doesn't mean the US government didn't have any involvement in 911 but it should mean we check what everyone says equally.jackiebrown wrote: »Fair enough. If I want to thats what I'll do.911myths.com wrote:Pah! Plainly you're just a shill/ Government stooge/ neo-con/ psyops site.
Yawn. Yes, I've heard that before, usually because it's much easier to smear people than dealing with the points they're making. But hey, if you believe that, then run along now, it's fine with me. There are plenty of other 9/11 sites that will tell you what you want to hear, and never even think of challenging any of your views.
I'm willing to listen if you want to explain it to me.jackiebrown wrote: »Ok. How about defining conspiracy theory in the context of what constitutes one on this forum? Could you define proof in the context of this forum?wikipedia wrote:A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:- it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
- makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
Just explain why it's a CT and I'll be happy.jackiebrown wrote: »As the "I smell a conspiracy" thread shows, even when you claim to have no proof and want an open discussion you still get badgered for it. It also begs the question that if people believe 9/11 is not a conspiracy then why discuss it in CT.
And a lot of it was me it has to be said. But this is a Conspiracy Theory forum, so I'd expect there to be some actual theory involved.0 -
What I saw clearly from the previous 911 threads was that either there was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion or the facts backed the US government findings. But honestly I'd be happy for you so show me otherwise in a new discussion about it. But US government=bad won't cut it here, there is a lot of bull**** associated with 911 and checking many 'truth' sites properly you can see that within five minutes. This doesn't mean the US government didn't have any involvement in 911 but it should mean we check what everyone says equally.
Insufficient evidence for you maybe. Overwhelming evidence in my eyes. See how this works. You feel your right, I accept that. Can you accept that I feel I am right?. What is your intention in bringing this up again.? Did people not listen the first time or is your ego demanding more people should accept your version of events?.I'm willing to listen if you want to explain it to me.
This is a reponse to a response I gave to 6th in that if I wanted to write a blog I would. If I ever want to I'll let you know. Your 2nd quote is putting words in my mouth. I don't think like the poster and please dont assciate me with those comments.Just explain why it's a CT and I'll be happy.
From Wiki:A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events and lack conclusive evidence to support themselves.
A conspiracy theory, if wiki is how you define things, lacks conclusive evidence to support themselves. Proof makes a THEORY, the defination you gave.But this is a Conspiracy Theory forum, so I'd expect there to be some actual theory involved.
Its not the theory forum as your suggesting by your defination of theory. It's a conpiracy theory forum.0 -
jackiebrown wrote: »From Wiki:A conspiracy theory is a theory that explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by a usually powerful cabal. Conspiracy theories are often viewed with skepticism because they contrast with mainstream explanations for historical or current events and lack conclusive evidence to support themselves.
A conspiracy theory, if wiki is how you define things, lacks conclusive evidence to support themselves. Proof makes a THEORY, the defination you gave.
Its not the theory forum as your suggesting by your defination of theory. It's a conpiracy theory forum.
But the definition of theory you provide is based on, and in fact links to, the definition meglome provides.
So if we're going by your definition of theory, we're still using meglome's definition.
Proof does not make a theory, proof makes fact.0 -
Advertisement
-
But the definition of theory you provide is based on, and in fact links to, the definition meglome provides.
So if we're going by your definition of theory, we're still using meglome's definition.
Proof does not make a theory, proof makes fact.
Grand so. Here's the full defination of a theory given in wiki. I'll highlight the important bits from my pov.
A theory, in the general sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of observations. A theory does two things:- it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
- makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class.
Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory.
The word 'theory' is generally considered to derive from Greek θεωρία theoria (Jerome), Greek "contemplation, speculation", from θεωρός "spectator", θέα thea "a view" + ὁρᾶν horan "to see", literally "looking at a show".[1] A second possible etymology traces the word back to το θείον to theion "divine things" instead of thea, reflecting the concept of contemplating the divine organisation (Cosmos) of the nature. The word has been in use in English since at least the late 16th century.
Maybe the mods could decide if its the colloquial definition or the scholarly one we should be using.
Both sides in this discussion have facts, which I'm sure was regurgitated ad infinitum in the past years. Both sides have facts so both sides must be right eh? Or maybe some are more right than others. Or maybe its a distraction.
What it finally boils down to is what you believe to be true.
0 -
Wow. We can't even get the definition of "theory". God help us when we try to define "conspiracy".
Anyway, with regards the "facts" statment, the facts of events like 9/11 are there for everyone to see. It's the interpretation of the facts that's the problem. If somethign like this was to be done, the basic facts have to be put down, that everyone agrees on, ie a guy (can't remember his name) said "pull it". That's a fact. What he meant by it is speculation. So the fact that he said it would go down on a timeline. The speculation to it's meaning would go afterwards.
We could start at the start of the timeline and head down it discussing each part. That's my 2 cents, anyway.0 -
jackiebrown wrote: »Insufficient evidence for you maybe. Overwhelming evidence in my eyes. See how this works. You feel your right, I accept that. Can you accept that I feel I am right?. What is your intention in bringing this up again.? Did people not listen the first time or is your ego demanding more people should accept your version of events?.
I've already told you I'm willing to listen carefully to any point that is made.
If you go to any CT site now and read through the information it does indeed look like there's overwhelming evidence that 911 was a major CT. And there are many many sites like this. So I can see why a lot of people would take these claims at face value. The problem arises when you look at all these claims in detail, and I mean in the finer detail. And what you find on most CT sites is misrepresentation, misquoting, selective use of facts, little balance, lots of assumptions and many downright fabrications. I read up on all of this stuff before I decided what I believed about 911. I was a bit dismayed actually by the shenanigans on many of the ST sites, if they are so sure they are correct well it shouldn't be an issue to give a more balanced view, right?
The reason I like 911myhts.com so much is he looks carefully at the fine details and presents a balanced view of what he believes. I fear too many people started out believing 911 was a big CT and are not interested in anything that shows that not to be the case.0 -
Wow. We can't even get the definition of "theory". God help us when we try to define "conspiracy".
Anyway, with regards the "facts" statment, the facts of events like 9/11 are there for everyone to see. It's the interpretation of the facts that's the problem. If somethign like this was to be done, the basic facts have to be put down, that everyone agrees on, ie a guy (can't remember his name) said "pull it". That's a fact. What he meant by it is speculation. So the fact that he said it would go down on a timeline. The speculation to it's meaning would go afterwards.
True.
Silverstein [The evil Zionist Jew] who owns the lease to the buildings said pull it in an interview.
So the questions that arise about that are as follows:- Was he in charge of the fire-fighters to be able to tell them anything?
- Is 'pull it' a term used in (controlled) demolition?
- Is 'pull it' a term used by fire-fighters or in fire-fighting?
- When he said this to the fire chief did they then just pull out of the building and stop attempting to fight the fire?
- Would this supposedly super clever Zionist [Jew] admit openly to the press he was involved in the biggest CT in history?
They are the questions that spring to mind.0 -
the entire issue of 9/11 being an inside job is something i feel very strong about, i have talked at lenght with friends and online for years about this but rather than writing a huge post, i would like to say one thing that is often overlooked by those that think it was as the american government and media say
World Trade Centre 7
that alone (and there is loads) should be enough to have you rethink the entire situation0 -
Advertisement
-
Bubba HoTep wrote: »the entire issue of 9/11 being an inside job is something i feel very strong about, i have talked at lenght with friends and online for years about this but rather than writing a huge post, i would like to say one thing that is often overlooked by those that think it was as the american government and media say
World Trade Centre 7
that alone (and there is loads) should be enough to have you rethink the entire situation
Well okay let's see what the questions about WTC7 might be?- Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?
- Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?
- Was the building extensively on fire in the first place?
- Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?
- Does it collapse at free fall speeds?
- If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?
- Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?
- Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?
Just off the top of my head.0 -
Well okay let's see what the questions about WTC7 might be?
- Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?
- Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?
- Was the building extensively on fire in the first place?
- Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?
- Does it collapse at free fall speeds?
- If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?
- Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?
- Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?
Just off the top of my head.
i want to apologise in advance if this sounds silly, but, in your post are you asking me for answers to the 8 Qs above or are you asking these questions for people that doubt the inside job theory to look into for themselves?0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »i want to apologise in advance if this sounds silly, but, in your post are you asking me for answers to the 8 Qs above or are you asking these questions for people that doubt the inside job theory to look into for themselves?
Not at all. The idea of the thread is to go though, 911 in this case, one small topic at a time and look carefully at each one. The idea being that everyone can show why they believe it was an inside job or not. So all of us should be able to back up what we believe. I'm hoping we've all come to whatever conclusion it is based on some kind of logic and evidence and not just because one of our mates Johnny told us so or just cause.
So I'm just suggesting stuff right now.0 -
Not at all. The idea of the thread is to go though, 911 in this case, one small topic at a time and look carefully at each one. The idea being that everyone can show why they believe it was an inside job or not. So all of us should be able to back up what we believe. I'm hoping we've all come to whatever conclusion it is based on some kind of logic and evidence and not just because one of our mates Johnny told us so or just cause.
So I'm just suggesting stuff right now.
thats actually brilliant, fair play
going through the 8 now...0 -
Well how about defining 'an inside' job .jackiebrown wrote: »9/11 was an inside job. I don't feel the need to convince you of this. It would be a complete waste of time.
I personnaly think that 9/11 was an outside/inside job , i don't fully subscribe to the main conspiracy theory that it was an inside job , i think there is a lot about 9/11 that is unknown , in particular who was behind it , although i have my suspicions , what i suspect i have not heard from any conspiracy theororists , i think CTers in general have been led down the garden path with regard to 9/11 .0 -
Well okay let's see what the questions about WTC7 might be?
- Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?
Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8472
"Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse."Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/- Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?
- Was the building extensively on fire in the first place?
- Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?
"The Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who owns a demolition firm and has been in the business for 30 years, regards it as certain that WTC 7 was demolished. His view is shared by numerous architects, engineers and other demolition professionals"
http://wtc7proof.blogspot.com/- Does it collapse at free fall speeds?
- If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?
- Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?
- Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?
http://www.youtube.com/v/et2wI1mmDcM
....and this only covers WTC7, and not very well on my part, its just a scratch on the surface0 -
espinolman wrote: »Well how about defining 'an inside' job .
I personnaly think that 9/11 was an outside/inside job , i don't fully subscribe to the main conspiracy theory that it was an inside job , i think there is a lot about 9/11 that is unknown , in particular who was behind it , although i have my suspicions , what i suspect i have not heard from any conspiracy theororists , i think CTers in general have been led down the garden path with regard to 9/11 .
i must agree with you here
i dont think it was literally a case of bush and his administration sitting down and planning the whole thing, he may honestly have not known anything about the hows, whens and whys, although he certainly got all he could from the situation
i feel that this was several criminal elements of government(s), military, military industry, corporations and others0 -
This is interesting.... I notice first of all that the main area under discussion at the moment is the 'falling' of the towers and the theory around it. What im curious to find out is what theory people have in relation to the planes hitting them? Was it as potrayed or was it an inside job? Did a plane actually hit the pentagon?
In relation to the collasping of the the towers, was it not a case of bad engineering? When the planes hit the tower did it not internally crack the poles (main structure) of the buildings and due to this they weakened causing them to collaspse nearly half hour after impact? If you think about it... if the pillars cracked and gave way would't this explain why the towers fell top to bottom rather than bottom giving in first...
We all seen how (horrifically) the towers collapsed, the top part caved and the weight crumbled what was under it until it hit bottom. If it was demolished would it not go bottom first?
They say that it shouldn't have collasped at all and this was due to an engineering fault - pillars in incorrect positions, concret was not pure etc and the strain on other structoral devices caused it to give way....
I love other peoples opinions on this....0 -
Ticktactoe wrote: »This is interesting.... I notice first of all that the main area under discussion at the moment is the 'falling' of the towers and the theory around it. What im curious to find out is what theory people have in relation to the planes hitting them? Was it as potrayed or was it an inside job? Did a plane actually hit the pentagon?
In relation to the collasping of the the towers, was it not a case of bad engineering? When the planes hit the tower did it not internally crack the poles (main structure) of the buildings and due to this they weakened causing them to collaspse nearly half hour after impact? If you think about it... if the pillars cracked and gave way would't this explain why the towers fell top to bottom rather than bottom giving in first...
We all seen how (horrifically) the towers collapsed, the top part caved and the weight crumbled what was under it until it hit bottom. If it was demolished would it not go bottom first?
They say that it shouldn't have collasped at all and this was due to an engineering fault - pillars in incorrect positions, concret was not pure etc and the strain on other structoral devices caused it to give way....
I love other peoples opinions on this....
regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"
for example there is no real plane wreckage, and the little bits of "wreckage" shown on the news would instantly (for me anyway) have my common sense telling me BS
plus they took every video of cctv from all the buildings around and would not release them, why?
they only released a video of only a few frames, which doesnt even show a plane, but rather what many people see to be a missile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcWT2lQszEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0
they go into all this very well in the documentary loose change
as for the towers falling, i though its pretty clear from all the videos that they do fall bottom first? i actually saw the second plane hit on the news as it was happening and instantly thought that they way the buildings fell looked not quite right to me, and this is when it literally fell, on tv,0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »regarding the pentagon, there is literally nothing, other than the gov/military saying a plane hit it as proof, this is usually seen as the easiest proof of "inside job"
for example there is no real plane wreckage, and the little bits of "wreckage" shown on the news would instantly (for me anyway) have my common sense telling me BS
plus they took every video of cctv from all the buildings around and would not release them, why?
they only released a video of only a few frames, which doesnt even show a plane, but rather what many people see to be a missile
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0
they go into all this very well in the documentary loose change
as for the towers falling, i though its pretty clear from all the videos that they do fall bottom first? i actually saw the second plane hit on the news as it was happening and instantly thought that they way the buildings fell looked not quite right to me, and this is when it literally fell, on tv,
Ya the pentagon one is strange and thats why i mentioned it above. Ive seen footage of it and you dont actually see any plane until the 'plane' is in the building however it has been said that the engine that is portrayed in pictures etc.. is not the same model as the engine of the plane that was said to have gone down....
Bottome first, really? I thought from looking at multiple angles and different footage that it appears that the structure of the building only collapses as the top crumbles down, maybe not - i must do some further looking!0 -
Advertisement
-
Ticktactoe wrote: »What im curious to find out is what theory people have in relation to the planes hitting them? Was it as potrayed or was it an inside job? Did a plane actually hit the pentagon?
I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !0 -
yeah, looks bottom first to me and most ive spoken to
have a look at these, see how the top is still intact (even with a huge hole in the side) yet is falling from the bottom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCUbcmo9-kE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ0 -
Ticktactoe wrote: »Ya the pentagon one is strange and thats why i mentioned it above. Ive seen footage of it and you dont actually see any plane until the 'plane' is in the building however it has been said that the engine that is portrayed in pictures etc.. is not the same model as the engine of the plane that was said to have gone down....
Bottome first, really? I thought from looking at multiple angles and different footage that it appears that the structure of the building only collapses as the top crumbles down, maybe not - i must do some further looking!
No, facts can be misleading.0 -
The response doesn't fully address the question, which was regarding a steel-framed building, not a steel-framed high-rise. Fire has collapsed steel-framed buildings. It has partially collapsed steel-framed buildings. It has collapsed the steel-frame part of steel-frame / concrete-core hybrid structures.Bubba HoTep wrote: »Has fire alone collapsed or partially collapsed other steel framed building?"
In more than 100 steel-framed, high-rise fires (most of them very hot, very large and very long-lasting), not one has collapsed, ever."
Richard Gage, AIA, a licensed architect of 20 years.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8472
Fire can cause steel to fail.
The Beijing fire has been previously discussed here. There are two simple questions to ask in response to be answered. They are also relevant to the previous points I made. For brevity's sake, I'll supply the answers as well."Giant flames engulf every floor of 44-story building and it remains standing, yet limited fires across just 8 floors of WTC 7 brought down building within 7 seconds on 9/11. How can NIST’s “new phenomenon” explain this one?A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse."Paul Joseph Watson
http://www.infowars.com/fire-consumes-wtc-7-size-skyscraper-building-does-not-collapse/
1) Does the Beijing building suffer the same design flaw which was attributed as the ultimate cause of WTC 7's collapse? No, it doesn't.
2) Does the NIST report, or any other official recounting of the events of 9/11 claim that all buildings of comparable size to WTC 7 must collapse under extreme fire? No, they don't.
More importantly...the question leads to being combined with the first question to become more significant. Again, I'll supply the answer for brevity.- Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?
How many buildings with the design flaw which is attributed to the collapse of WTC 7 have withstood fires comparable to or greater than those of WTC7? None.
Although your answer doesn't address the question at all (which asks about uniformity and direction, not speed), I've highlighted the two most important parts of it.- Is the collapse as uniform and as straight down as it's claimed?
...
To simplify: the roof came down as if mere air (and not 47 stories) had separated it from the ground. This can only be explained by the removal of structural resistance in a controlled demolition.
The roof of WTC 7 contained two penthouses. These collapsed from view long before the outer facade collapsed. If we begin our collapse at that point, we have a much, much longer collapse time...somewhere around 18 seconds, if memory serves.
In a similar vein, the argument that the roof could collapse to ground in 6.5 seconds can only be explained by structural resistance is correct. That this can only occur through controlled demolition is incorrect - internal building collapse before the outer facade collapsed could also accounr for it. Such a scenario would also be consistent with teh penthouses disappearing from view long before we see the outer facade buckle and fall "backwards" (It doesn't, contrary to popular belief, collapse straight down).
We agree, then, that it doesn't collapse at free-fall speeds.- Does it collapse at free fall speeds?
Interesting. A video which has explosives not immediately followed by the distinctive sounds of building collapse.- If controlled demolition was involved, why can't we hear the distinct sound of the explosives going off?
So...not the distinct sound of explosives being used for controlled demolition.
I stopped a few seconds in when Jones was mentioned, to be honest. If you really want to discuss just how wrong Jones is, we can dance that dance.- Thermite. Could it in practise work at all as claimed?
So we all accept, then that WTC 7 isn't the only building to be irreperably damaged by the collapse of towers. Excellent.- Was it the only building destroyed or badly damaged around the twin towers?
0 -
espinolman wrote: »I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !
but why portray it differently at all if there is nothing to hide?
as for who flew the planes, it was reported more than once that the "hijackers" that they named as the guys that did the job, 2 or 3 turned up alive and well in their home countries, so remote control planes isnt that far fetched i agree0 -
espinolman wrote: »I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !
Teh stupid, it burns.0 -
Why , so that we would be fooled into thinking it was solely an inside job !Bubba HoTep wrote: »but why portray it differently at all if there is nothing to hide?0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »
- Can we compare the unique design (cone in a cone design, floor brackets etc) of the WTC to other buildings that caught fire?
This is one of the most important things and none of the CT sites seems to mention it's importance. The WTC7 building had a very specific design and as it turns out some design flaws. To directly compare another building collapse you'd have to find one with this specific design, which you won't. So we can compare apples and oranges and wonder why they are not the same. Or we can accept that apples and orange are just not the same to begin with.
It's true during the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid the building didn't collapse but the entire steel section of the building collapsed. The rest of the building was concrete which is not affected by fire the way steel is.0 -
@bonkey
"Although your answer doesn't address the question at all (which asks about uniformity and direction, not speed)"
uniformity and direction is evident in all the videos of wtc7 falling no?
"We agree, then, that it doesn't collapse at free-fall speeds"
not at exactly free fall, but as near to free fall as would be expected from controlled demolition, and not achievable from the damage the building had from fire, which the building should have been able to withstand
"I stopped a few seconds in when Jones was mentioned"
i agree that im not happy to use the jones clip myself, BUT the info in it is the same presented by others also, the jones clip was the 1st in a list so in the intrest of speed i used it, the info is still relevant
"So we all accept, then that WTC 7 isn't the only building to be irreperably damaged by the collapse of towers. Excellent."
of course, others had damage from the initial plane crashes debris, and had more serious damage after WTC1,2&7 collapsed, and so were demolished, how does this change anything?
and while i admit that the links and quotes etc are not the best i could have posted, i did consider speed in posting my reply, and wanted to see a good flow to this thread, the simple fact, and you must admit, that the huge amount done by others that is available regarding research and proof far far outweighs the so called proof offered by the gov/military
so may i ask you this (i know its a bit off topic) but why would soooooo many find issue with the "proof" offered? why are there so many questions unanswered by the US gov? why have they blocked and hindered investigations rather than help them? what would compel so many people all over the world, from regular citizens, to scientists, to engineers to join and start truth movements?0 -
Advertisement
-
espinolman wrote: »Why , so that we would be fooled into thinking it was solely an inside job !
but why would the US gov/military want that?0 -
espinolman wrote: »I think the planes' were flown into the twin towers by remote control , i also think the towers collapsing was caused either by explosives or a clean nuclear type weapon . I think it was probably a missile that hit the pentagon . Now that is not to say it was an inside job , just because it might have been done differently than portrayed does not mean it was an inside job !
Okay let's ask some questions on this:- Where are all the people from the plane?
- How did these people get off the planes before they crashed?
- How did DNA (small bits of bodies etc) that is a direct match to the people who are missing get into the rubble?
- Why are there no sounds of explosives, like you'd expect from a controlled demolition?
- Show how it is possible to have a clean and untraceable nuclear device?
- How would you neatly make this nuclear (and presumably powerful) device destroy the building at the exact point the planes hit?
etc etc...0 -
This is one of the most important things and none of the CT sites seems to mention it's importance. The WTC7 building had a very specific design and as it turns out some design flaws. To directly compare another building collapse you'd have to find one with this specific design, which you won't. So we can compare apples and oranges and wonder why they are not the same. Or we can accept that apples and orange are just not the same to begin with.
It's true during the fire at the Windsor building in Madrid the building didn't collapse but the entire steel section of the building collapsed. The rest of the building was concrete which is not affected by fire the way steel is.
why then have so many engineers come forward, to say otherwise?
the sheer amount saying otherwise is staggering, why, what have they to gain from saying it was a controlled demo?
and it doesnt just hang on WTC7, theres the pentagon, theres the phonecalls from the planes, theres lack of video for the pentagon, lack of wreckage,"war games", where were the jets of the mighty US military to shoot them down and on and on.....
there are so many documentaries(loose change etc etc) that say otherwise, why?0 -
Okay let's ask some questions on this:
- Where are all the people from the plane?
- How did these people get off the planes before they crashed?
- How did DNA (small bits of bodies etc) that is a direct match to the people who are missing get into the rubble?
- Why are there no sounds of explosives, like you'd expect from a controlled demolition?
- Show how it is possible to have a clean and untraceable nuclear device?
- How would you neatly make this nuclear (and presumably powerful) device destroy the building at the exact point the planes hit?
etc etc...
1. I said the planes' were remote controlled into the towers , i did not say the people were not on the plane , i think they were and so were the pilots' , but the planes' were taken over remotely and the pilots were at the controls but could do nothing , thats' what i think.
2. They did not get off the planes'.
3. Obvious .
4. Thermite is not an explosive , and if it was not thermite then something else that does'nt make noise !
5. I don't know , i think anything is possible .
6. maybe it was planted near the top of the towers' and then detonated .0 -
Okay let's ask some questions on this:
- Where are all the people from the plane?
- How did these people get off the planes before they crashed?
- How did DNA (small bits of bodies etc) that is a direct match to the people who are missing get into the rubble?
- Why are there no sounds of explosives, like you'd expect from a controlled demolition?
- Show how it is possible to have a clean and untraceable nuclear device?
- How would you neatly make this nuclear (and presumably powerful) device destroy the building at the exact point the planes hit?
etc etc...
1.killed most likely
2.the planes that crashed may not be the same planes as had the passengers originally,
3.ask yourself, who is telling you that there was DNA, and also how is it they found the some passports of the "hijackers" while everything else burned? (some of which later reported to have turned up alive!!)
4.there are some, in some videos, and lots of videos of witnesses and firefighters saying they heard explosions, but if you take for granted for the sake of arguement that its an inside job, im sure in the age of nanotechnology etc that they can find a way to muffle most of these, or even have a newer way of demolishing that is perhaps less explosive than the usual
5.i actually think that is a silly suggestion to begin with.
6.as above.why would it need to be nuclear at all?
i have to say that i have been taking for granted that everyone here has seen loosechange or similar, am i wrong?0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »why then have so many engineers come forward, to say otherwise?
the sheer amount saying otherwise is staggering, why, what have they to gain from saying it was a controlled demo?
and it doesnt just hang on WTC7, theres the pentagon, theres the phonecalls from the planes, theres lack of video for the pentagon, lack of wreckage,"war games", where were the jets of the mighty US military to shoot them down and on and on.....
there are so many documentaries(loose change etc etc) that say otherwise, why?
The vast majority of engineers agree with the official version so why do the smaller amount who cry conspiracy count for more?
What I'm trying to do here is look at each small detail. And see can we come to any final conclusion on each one. There's lot's of splatter effect about, so many supposedly connected things but are they really connected? The devil is in the details.0 -
Advertisement
-
just found this
Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust
Posted by sakerfa on April 6, 2009
A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.
The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.
Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
The paper ends with the statement, “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
Ordinary thermite burns quickly and can melt through steel, but it is not explosive. Nanothermite, however, can be formulated as a high explosive. It is stable when wet and can be applied like paint.
The presence of pre-planted explosives in the WTC buildings calls into question the official story that the buildings were destroyed by the airplane collisions and fire alone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the official government agency that investigated the building collapses, did not test for residues of explosives.
Richard Gage, AIA, said, “This peer-reviewed scientific study of the disturbing contents of the WTC dust is yet another smoking gun proving to the over 600 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) who I represent that a real investigation must be carried out immediately as to the actual cause of the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11.”
One of the paper’s co-authors is AE911Truth researcher/editor Gregg Roberts. When Roberts signed the AE911Truth petition demanding a new 9/11 investigation, he wrote, “What struck me on 9/11 was how much dust was created.” Now, over 7 years later, Roberts has an intimate appreciation for that dust. The steel was removed and destroyed very quickly after the catastrophe, despite loud protests from fire fighters and others. It was destruction of the primary evidence at a crime scene. The dust, however, remains as a key piece of physical evidence.
The nine coauthors are Niels H. Harrit, Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Jeffrey Farrer, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, Kevin R. Ryan, 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, Frank M. Legge, Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia, Daniel Farnsworth, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Gregg Roberts, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA, James R. Gourley, International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX, and Bradley R. Larsen, S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT.
Source: AE911Truth0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »so may i ask you this (i know its a bit off topic) but why would soooooo many find issue with the "proof" offered?
I'm not into speculating as to why people believe the things they believe.
You seem to believe these things. Why not make your case as to why you find them credible. Why not pick one of these things and make your case as to why you find it credible?why then have so many engineers come forward, to say otherwise?
the sheer amount saying otherwise is staggering, why, what have they to gain from saying it was a controlled demo?
Rounded to the nearest percent of engineers worldwide, the "staggering" number who have come out to say otherwise is....0%.
Rounded to the nearest percent of relevantly qualified engineers worldwide, the "staggering" number who have come out to say otherwise is...again 0%.and it doesnt just hang on WTC7, theres the pentagon, theres the phonecalls from the planes, theres lack of video for the pentagon, lack of wreckage,"war games", where were the jets of the mighty US military to shoot them down and on and on.....
Meglome posed a series of questions and you asked what his intention was.
He clarified that he wanted to go through small issues in detail before moving on - an approach you called "brilliant".
You offered brief sketches of answers, which I critiqued.
Rather than sticking to those small issues, responding to my critique and going into the detail that he wanted (an approach, I point out again, you hailed as brilliant), you've responded with a barrage of subject-changing.
Do you not want to try out his brilliant approach? Would you rather pick a different point to examine in detail?0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »1.killed most likely
So you now need more people involved in this conspiracy to have these people killed. You also need people to kill innocent people and not ever tell anyone. Why not just fly them into the buildings?Bubba HoTep wrote: »2.the planes that crashed may not be the same planes as had the passengers originally,
And where did these huge planes go to? It's been over seven years surely they could be found if they exist. Notwithstanding the bits of plane found match exactly with the missing planes. And you need lots more people in on the CT to hide them.Bubba HoTep wrote: »3.ask yourself, who is telling you that there was DNA, and also how is it they found the some passports of the "hijackers" while everything else burned? (some of which later reported to have turned up alive!!).
So we take it that even more people are in on the CT to fake up the DNA. Starting to get very messy now with the number of people we need to have involved. See what I'm saying?
There were some confused stories about the hijackers but look for the later stories and they sort this out. All the named people are missing so maybe it was them??
Light objects will get blasted out heavier items won't. So you would expect to find these small items, it would be strange if you didn't not the other way around.Bubba HoTep wrote: »4.there are some, in some videos, and lots of videos of witnesses and firefighters saying they heard explosions, but if you take for granted for the sake of arguement that its an inside job, im sure in the age of nanotechnology etc that they can find a way to muffle most of these, or even have a newer way of demolishing that is perhaps less explosive than the usual
Of course people heard explosions. There were three big buildings on fire at the end of the day. These buildings were full of things that would burn and things that if burned might explode.
As soon as we start inventing ways to make our theories work we're in trouble. Either sound can be dampened to such an extent or it can't. I would suggest given the circumstances it would be near impossible to do.
For example this is the text you will find on many CT sites: "I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us."
But this is the full text, do they say the same thing?
"I thought some part of the plane or some part of the building that had been hit by the plane had exploded and debris was sliding down from the floors above us. I would later learn it was a second airplane diving into the other tower and it was debris from that explosion hitting the windows."Bubba HoTep wrote: »5.i actually think that is a silly suggestion to begin with.
6.as above.why would it need to be nuclear at all?
I agree it's ridiculous yet some people fully believe it.Bubba HoTep wrote: »i have to say that i have been taking for granted that everyone here has seen loosechange or similar, am i wrong?
Yup I've seen them and they are great at selectively quoting a lot of things. Look for the full quotes and context.0 -
The vast majority of engineers agree with the official version so why do the smaller amount who cry conspiracy count for more?
What I'm trying to do here is look at each small detail. And see can we come to any final conclusion on each one. There's lot's of splatter effect about, so many supposedly connected things but are they really connected? The devil is in the details.
and i have to say i commend you for it, and you are correct the devil is in the details,
however i must admit im a net addict, and in the years since 911 almost everything from engineers that i have seen disagree with the "official story" unless they are involved some way with the government,
i dont want the fact the its an inside job to be true, i wish it wasnt, it makes me angry sad and scared, but everything i have read and seen has brought me to this conclusion...
believe me, if anyone wants the official story to be true, i do
if anybody hasnt seen loose change (there are others but this is a great start) here it is
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en0 -
Teh stupid, it burns.
If you can't post in a civilized manner then dont. Please read the forum charter.0 -
Advertisement
-
Bubba HoTep wrote: »if anybody hasnt seen loose change (there are others but this is a great start) here it is
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en
Loose Change is certainly not a great start. There is literally nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny.0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »and i have to say i commend you for it, and you are correct the devil is in the details,
however i must admit im a net addict, and in the years since 911 almost everything from engineers that i have seen disagree with the "official story" unless they are involved some way with the government,
i dont want the fact the its an inside job to be true, i wish it wasnt, it makes me angry sad and scared, but everything i have read and seen has brought me to this conclusion...
believe me, if anyone wants the official story to be true, i do
The problem with the web is the vast majority of the information on it about 911 is those supporting/pushing the conspiracy. It makes it very difficult to find balance. Read http://www.911myths.com as he really tries to find balance and your eyes will be really opened to how much bull**** there is out there.0 -
To all those who say it was an inside job. Can I just ask a few questions.
Why is american competence and ability to pull something like this off always taken as a given. This is the same country and system that couldn't keep a break in at a hotel covered up. Is it not possible that (for lack of a better expression and I apologise) that America pretty much got bitch slapped by a bunch of determined people0 -
Loose Change is certainly not a great start. There is literally nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny.
well, while i was about to make a post saying that while i admit that im not the most articulate in making my points, i was going to try and explain why i have the opinions that i do with refs. point for point from here on in, rather than being broad, so we could keep the discussion going, as i was intrested in the points you had to offer
but since you feel that loose change has "nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny" i reckon that anything more i bring up would be wasting my time
ah well0 -
ok how about this one question and see if we can take it from here?
the FBI took every cctv video from all the surrounding buildings of the pentagon and would not release them, execpt for a video of stills that doesnt even have a plane in it...
why keep those cctv videos hidden, especially since people were crying out and demanding to see them?0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »but since you feel that loose change has "nothing in it which stands up to scrutiny" i reckon that anything more i bring up would be wasting my time
I said "literally nothing", not "nothing" and I stand by it.
You presented Loose Change and said its good, but didn't discuss any of the material in it.
In the interests of balance, I offer screwloosechange. Like you, I'll take the easy approach, and not discuss any of the material in it.
If that much reading isn't your thing, just check out the top (stickied) post.
Loose Change was discussed to death here over the years. I doubt very much that you'll find posters here who believe in a 911 conspiracy and were around for those discussions who'll argue that Loose Change is a good and valuable source.0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »ok how about this one question and see if we can take it from here?
the FBI took every cctv video from all the surrounding buildings of the pentagon and would not release them, execpt for a video of stills that doesnt even have a plane in it...
why keep those cctv videos hidden, especially since people were crying out and demanding to see them?
The videos you refer to were never the property of the FBI. This is an important point....they can seize evidence and hold on to it as long as they deem necessary (something I disagree with, but is a side issue) but it never becomes theirs. For this reason, the FBI cannot choose to release the video to the public. They can keep it as evidence, or return it to its owners, but thats it. The Justice Department can, in certain circumstances, request/insist that the material be released.
The Pentagon CCTV videos (two of them) was released by the Justice Department in May 2006. Prior to that there were some stills which are often confused as being the video. I can't remember offhand how they came to be released.
JudicialWatch issued a Freedom-of-Information request for the remaining videos. This was a way to do an "end run" around the fact that the FBI wouldn't (and couldn't) voluntarily choose to release it.
The FOI request was processed, and ultimately accepted.
On September 115, 2006, the Citgo video was released.
On December 03, 2006, the Doubletree video was released.
In both cases, one can identify the explosion, but the resolution and camera direction prevent anything more useful from being seen.
Naturally, there are those who claim the videos have been doctored....apparently because the video doesn't show what they want it to.0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »but why would the US gov/military want that?
Because the US Government changes every few years.
According to the standard inside job theory as espoused by Jones et al ("Bush did 9/11") once Bush is gone from office the problem is solved.
Sure it may have been an inside job but who was on the "inside"? The Administration? The CIA? Military? The standard inside job theory puts all the blame on Bush and Cheney - once they go the problem is solved would be the natural endpoint of that.
I think involvement of groups who have a continuity of influence across many Administrations should be considered.
I also think there was outside intelligence agency involvement, namely by the Mossad.
(Should major intelligence agencies such as the Mossad be thought of as "outside" in the first place? Probably not.)0 -
I said "literally nothing", not "nothing" and I stand by it.
You presented Loose Change and said its good, but didn't discuss any of the material in it.
In the interests of balance, I offer screwloosechange. Like you, I'll take the easy approach, and not discuss any of the material in it.
If that much reading isn't your thing, just check out the top (stickied) post.
Loose Change was discussed to death here over the years. I doubt very much that you'll find posters here who believe in a 911 conspiracy and were around for those discussions who'll argue that Loose Change is a good and valuable source.
im not trying to discuss loose change only, i mention it here just so i can know if we have at least that in common, and i have been discussing material from it, hence my point about the pentagon videos0 -
The videos you refer to were never the property of the FBI. This is an important point....they can seize evidence and hold on to it as long as they deem necessary (something I disagree with, but is a side issue) but it never becomes theirs. For this reason, the FBI cannot choose to release the video to the public. They can keep it as evidence, or return it to its owners, but thats it. The Justice Department can, in certain circumstances, request/insist that the material be released.
The Pentagon CCTV videos (two of them) was released by the Justice Department in May 2006. Prior to that there were some stills which are often confused as being the video. I can't remember offhand how they came to be released.
JudicialWatch issued a Freedom-of-Information request for the remaining videos. This was a way to do an "end run" around the fact that the FBI wouldn't (and couldn't) voluntarily choose to release it.
The FOI request was processed, and ultimately accepted.
On September 115, 2006, the Citgo video was released.
On December 03, 2006, the Doubletree video was released.
In both cases, one can identify the explosion, but the resolution and camera direction prevent anything more useful from being seen.
Naturally, there are those who claim the videos have been doctored....apparently because the video doesn't show what they want it to.
what has the videos not being the property of FBI got to do with them not being shown? its not as if the videos have copyrighted or private content on them, they are videos of the pentagon, what reason would any of the video owners have for not wanting them to be shown? considering the circumstances they all would want there cctv to be shown
aside from those, the pentagon is surrounded by its own cctv cameras, apart from the video of stills (showing a blast, yet no plane) they havent shown any of them, why? surely this would be something they themselves would like to be shown
the doubletree video you mention http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H285_DWX_bQ is no different than the video of stills, it shows a blast, and again, no plane
i cant find the citgo video, if you have a link that would be great
and why wait until 2006 to release them? no reason at all they couldnt be shown in 20010 -
Advertisement
Advertisement